MINUTES
Regular meeting to be held in Commissioners Meeting Room,
Third Floor, Court House,
North & South
doors of Court House open at
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Addington, Carl Conner, Duane Erwin, Guy Gentry, Gary Michel, Mike Moesner, Larry Willis.
Also present were Sheila Lacer, Assistant Director, Les Shively, Attorney, Jaynann Hebner and Susan Weigman, Staff.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
The meeting was called to order by the Assistant Director and a quorum declared present.
MINUTES: Upon a motion made by Guy Gentry and seconded
by Larry Willis, the Minutes of the last regular meeting held
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
The Assistant Director stated the first item of business is to elect a President of the Warrick County Area Plan Commission to serve during 2005.
Larry Willis made a motion to nominate Guy Gentry as President. Robert Addington seconded the motion.
Duane Erwin made a motion to close the nominations and elect Guy Gentry as President by acclamation. The motion was seconded by Mike Moesner and unanimously carried.
The Assistant Director turned the floor over to the President.
The President stated they need to elect a Vice-President of Warrick County Area Plan Commission to serve during 2005.
Robert Addington made a motion to nominate Larry Willis as Vice-President. The motion was seconded by Mike Moesner.
Duane Erwin made a motion to close the nominations and elect Larry Willis as Vice-President by acclamation. The motion was seconded by Gary Michel and unanimously carried.
APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY:
Larry Willis made a motion to appoint Les Shively as Warrick County Area Plan Commission Attorney. The motion was seconded by Duane Erwin and unanimously carried.
Mr. Gentry stated that Mr. Shively would need to meet with the Executive Director to discuss his attorney fees.
SET MEETING DATE,
TIME & PLACE:
The President stated the current meeting date is the second
Wednesday of each month at
The Assistant Director stated that the Executive Director would like for the meeting date to remain as is.
Larry Willis made a motion to keep the meeting date and time
the same and hold the Area Plan Commission meetings on the second Wednesday of
each month at
ADOPTION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS:
Duane Erwin made a motion to adopt the Rules and Regulations as set forth in 2004. The motion was seconded by Robert Addington and unanimously carried.
APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS:
The Assistant Director stated there are only two Board Members
that qualify to be sent as
Robert Addington made a motion to appoint Larry Willis to the
Board of Zoning Appeals as the
APPOINTMENT TO
PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE:
The Assistant Director stated the Plat Review Meetings are held on the Tuesday before the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals meetings. The meetings are held during the day so the new appointment would need to be able to have a work schedule that could accommodate daytime meetings.
Larry Willis made a motion to appoint Guy Gentry to the Plat Review Committee. The motion was seconded by Carl Conner and unanimously carried.
ANNUAL REPORT:
The Assistant Director stated that everyone has an annual report in their packet for them to review. She said it was a year end review from 2004.
Duane Erwin made a motion to approve the annual report. The motion was seconded by Larry Willis and unanimously carried.
COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE:
Mr. Shively stated the
Mr. Erwin asked Mr. Shively if he had reviewed it since the changes had been made.
Mr. Shively said yes, he had reviewed it and he had also been present at the Commissioners meeting when it was discussed. The changes were very minor and he would briefly go over them as follows:
1. Page 4 – Section 1 – Statement of Purpose – add in economic development after prosperity. Also, propose should be changed to purpose in first sentence.
2. Page 6 – Adult Cabaret – take out Nightclub, bar, restaurant, or similar and put in A commercial.
3. Page 12 – Dwelling, Two-Family or Duplex – change to read “A building designed for or used exclusively for residential purposes by two families living independently of each other.
4. Page 12 – Dwelling Unit – A building or portion thereof, designed for and used for residential purposes by a family.
5. Page 37 – Flood Hazard Protection – Have corrections made as required by DNR.
6. Page 134 – On-Premise Signs – under Section 2 Placement A – add “This shall include the use of semi trailers for signage.” And under Section 3 Exemptions “Temporary political signs”.
7. Page 138 – Outdoor Advertising Displays/Off – Premise Signs/Billboards – under Section 2 Placement A – add “This shall include the use of semi trailers for signage.”
Mr. Shively stated if the amendments are adopted by the
Planning Commission the new Ordinance would go into effect
The President called for a motion.
Larry Willis made a motion to adopt the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance as amended by the
The President then explained the Rules of Procedure to the
audience and stated that any rezoning petition being given a recommendation
this evening will be forwarded to the
SUBDIVISION FOR
PRIMARY PLAT APPROVAL:
PP-04-17 – Three
Present was Mark Chamness.
The President called for a staff report.
The Assistant Director stated the return receipts from certified mail of notice to the adjacent property owners have been submitted. She stated this was continued from last month per request of the surveyor. She stated the subject property is zoned “A” Agricultural and requires a minimum frontage of 100’ at the building line and a minimum lot area of ½ acre unless septic sites are required and then it needs 2 ½ acres. She states there is no flood plain on the property. She said the original subdivision was five lots. She also stated this subdivision was first filed as a subdivision of lots 1 & 4 and was to create two additional lots. She added that State Statute requires that any subdivision of a recorded lot requires the sign off of all lot owners within that recorded subdivision and one of the adjacent property owners objected to the division of lot 1 and so therefore they agreed to not subdivide lot 1 and a new plat was submitted for the subdivision of lot 4. She stated all of the lot owners in the subdivision have now signed the plat. She said the newly created lot has a very small buildable area between the road and the lake but the engineer indicated that a structure built out over the lake could be engineered. She asked Mr. Shively if he felt there should be verbiage added to the plat indicating a small buildable area.
Mr. Shively stated as long as the lot was a buildable lot and met the standards of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, there would be no reason to add anything to the plat.
The Assistant Director stated the
Mr. Gentry asked if the ground was high wall or slope.
Mr. Chamness said it was slope.
The President asked for questions from the Board Members
The President called for remonstrators, being none he asked to entertain a motion.
Mr. Gentry made a motion to approve PP-04-17. The motion was seconded by Gary Michel and unanimously carried.
REZONING PETITIONS:
PC-R-05-01 – Petition of
Virginia A. Schnur, Maria D. Eisterhold, Anne T. Schnur Downey and
Beverly J. Schnur by Dona Lasher, P.O.A. to rezone 20 acres
located on the W side of Epworth Rd. approximately ¼ mile N of the intersection
formed by Stahl Rd. (S 375) & Epworth Rd. (W 1050), Ohio Twp. from “A”
Agriculture to “M-2” General Industrial zoning district. (Complete legal on
file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard
Mr. Gentry asked if all three of the rezonings were contiguous.
Mrs. Lacer replied that they were the same family and petition PC-R-05-01 & PC-R-05-02 were contiguous but not PC-R-05-03.
Mr. Gentry stated that petition PC-R-05-01 & PC-R-05-02 could be discussed together but voted separately with two motions. He asked Mr. Bivins if they would prefer to discuss them together or separately.
Mr. Bivins stated that he felt they were the same and discussing them together would be fine.
Mr. Gentry stated that both petitions would be discussed together with separate motions.
PC-R-05-02 – Petition of Virginia A. Schnur, Maria D. Eisterhold,
Anne T. Schnur Downey, Beverly J. Schnur, David C. Schnur, Harold T. Schnur
Trust-Life Estate, James A & Joan L.
Schnur Trust- Life Estate, Michael J.
Schnur, Tony A. Schnur, Jane M. Baker, Dona L. Lasher, Lois A Mitchell and
Susan E. Davis by Dona Lasher, P.O.A. to rezone 95.4 acres located on
the E side of Epworth Rd. approximately 0’ S of the intersection formed by Oak
Grove Rd. (S 300) & Epworth Rd. (W 1050) and on the W side of Epworth Rd.
approximately 1900’ S of the intersection
formed by Oak Grove Rd. (S 300) & Epworth Rd. (W 1050), Ohio Twp.
from “A” Agriculture to “M-2” General Industrial zoning district. (Complete
legal on file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard
Present were Dona Lasher and Bill Bivins, ACCU Surveys & Civil Engineering.
The President called for a staff report.
The Assistant Director stated for petition PC-R-05-01, we do have all the return receipts submitted and Ms. Lasher does have the recorded Power of Attorney for over 50% of the owners. She stated that this is a large family and there are several people on the deeds. She said the request for petition PC-R-05-01 is to rezone 20 acres from “A” Agriculture to “M-2” General Industrial and there is no minimum lot size required for industrial zoning. She added this holds true for all 3 zonings. She stated the Comprehensive Plan for this parcel projects the area to be commercial and the existing land use is “A” Agricultural. She said the property to the North is “A” Agriculture with residences who she believes are family.
Ms. Lasher stated that it is a rental property and at this time there is family member living there.
The Assistant Director stated
that part of the property is in the PC-R-05-O2.
She said to the South is “A” Agriculture , “M-1” Light Industrial to SE
(
The President asked if there was anything to add to the staff report.
Mr. Bivins stated that the new
entry to Hwy. 62 and the proposed expansion of
The President asked for questions from Board Members.
Mr. Conner confirmed that the rezoning was for assembly of automotive parts.
Mr. Bivins replied that this is what their contacts are proposing but he is not at liberty to say whom at this point.
Mr. Conner stated he respected the fact that he could not disclose that information but is this basically a completed transaction and is this rezoning one of the obstacles that have to be overcome to get to where they are going.
Mr. Bivins replied that this was correct.
Mr. Conner asked if they did in fact have a buyer that is wanting to erect some type of assembly plant.
Mr. Bivins replied, No, there was nothing on the dotted line.
Mr. Conner stated that
Mr. Bivins stated that it had not been discussed but he felt like it would be up to the purchaser. He also stated that in his past experience that normally when there is a subdivision developed that the developer does dedicate the right of way to the County.
Mr. Conner confirmed that they had a clear understanding of what we would be looking at and what traditionally happens.
Mr. Bivins replied, yes.
The President called for any other questions for Board Members.
Mr. Shively asked to confirm, so he would be able to properly advise the Board, that this would not be a type of auto parts salvage operation.
Mr. Bivins replied, no that it was his understanding that it would be assembly of new parts.
Mr. Conner asked if they or the proposed buyer had been talking to anyone in Warrick County Economic Development.
Mr. Bivins said not to his knowledge.
The President called for any remonstrators.
Jennifer Willis, representing O’Brian Transport stated that when they rezoned several years ago they had to meet several expectations of this family and she would hope they would understand why they too have expectations. She said one of the conditions was they had to have plans drawn up by an architect to prove that they were putting a business on the property they also had to prove that the business would meet standards. She stated they suggested several other options such as; they be rezoned to something other than M-1 zoning. She requested that they present more formal documentation other than saying there is a possibility of a sale as well as considering other zoning classifications. She also wanted to request that the County make it a condition that they take Agricultural price for the land that will be needed in the expansion of Epworth Road Development to prove they are in fact doing this for economical development and not just so they can ask a higher price for the land.
The President asked for any other remonstrators.
Andrew O’Brian stated that they were only granted M-1 zoning because this would allow them to do some jobs outside and that M-2 zoning would include everything except a landfill. He said this would allow you to put a chemical plant or heavy industrial facility in there. He also stated that he agreed they should have to provide more documentation of what is intended before they are allowed to proceed so they don’t end up with some chemical place that has storage tanks of dangerous chemicals. He said they would have been able to have the C-4 zoning but they were doing a job at that time that required them to stretch spools of wire and this would have to be done outdoors so they decided to go with M-1 zoning. He also stated they would have been able to do more jobs than what they do know if they had be granted the M- 2 zoning, so if you give this applicant M-2 zoning what will be required as far as fencing and things to protect surrounding properties that aren’t heavy industrial.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Conner when they rezoned to M-1 did they write an agreement to sell the land they needed for the right of way to you as Agricultural rather than donating it through a subdivision.
Mr. Conner replied that there were negotiations with their attorney in regards to selling that right of way at what would be the lowest appraised value based upon what the zoning was.
Mrs. Lacer stated it was not a subdivision, they built on the entire parcel.
Mr. Conner said speaking as one
member, they should be aware of what has transpired in the past and wondered if
they had given any thought to the expansion of
Mr. Bivins asked if the land had already been appraised.
Mr. Conner stated no, they were still in the process at this time.
Mr. Bivins said he felt that would be something he should discuss with the applicant before the next Commissioner Meeting. He stated that he thought the only thing that required fencing was a salvage yard.
Mr. Gentry replied that is correct.
Mr. Conner stated something else
we should keep in mind as well as right of way are some of the developments
that are already going in along
Ms. Lasher asked what they were zoned.
Mr. Conner replied that none of that has been changed yet except for the corner.
The President called for any other questions.
Mr. Willis asked what the Comprehensive Plan projects in that area.
Mrs. Lacer stated that the Comprehensive Plan on the 20 acre parcel projects the area to be commercial and on the 95 acre parcel it also projects commercial and on the East side of Epworth it has no projection, just a 100 year Flood Plain.
The President called for any other questions from Board Members.
Mr. Bivins stated that Complete Lumber Company, North of Telephone Road is already zoned M-2, so they are in the same area as other M-2 zonings.
The President called for any other questions from Board Members, being none he asked to entertain a motion.
Mr. Willis asked if he could ask the applicant one other question.
The President replied, yes.
Mr. Willis asked if there were active negotiations with a potential buyer.
Mr. Bivins stated, yes.
Mr. Shively stated he wanted to
mention a couple of things to consider before the Board voted. He said once it is zoned M-2 it would be
allowed any use under M-2 zoning and in regards to the remonstrators request to
require the applicant to submit design guidelines and things of this nature
that in our present ordinance this can’t be required. He also stated in regards to the proposed
right of way, you can require dedication of right of way when the right of way
is necessary because the proposed use is going to generate the need for that
additional infrastructure. He said when
you have a situation where there is a plan already afoot or on record and it so
happens that here comes a land owner with a proposal for development they
legally can’t use that as an opportunity to try and get a better price. He said the intentions for the tax payers are
well thought out and you would want to be very careful about that and not want
it to be reflected in any decision on zoning.
He stated he felt what needed to be looked at this evening was the
Comprehensive Plan and surrounding land uses and whether this is appropriate
land use. He said another point he would
like to bring up is in regards to plating.
He stated there is no requirement that this contiguous acreage be
plated, so keep in mind that this is not necessarily going to come back to a
plat review or subdivision review. He
also stated that Courts are really starting to put a lot of emphasis on whether
the Planning Commission it’s deliberations and often the
Mr. Gentry stated even though it can’t be required the Board has always somewhat adhered to speculation zoning and our distaste for that type of action being done. He said even though you have a potential buyer, that all well good intentions fall by the wayside as they said there is nothing on the dotted line. He said he would like for the Board to consider that, as Mr. Shively stated earlier, if this deal does not go through and it is properly zoned the owners on record will look at Plan B and what will fall in that area.
The President asked for any other questions from Board Members and if not he would like to entertain a motion. He also stated they will need a motion for petitions PC-R-05-01 & PC-R-05-02.
Mr. Moesner made a motion to approve PC-R-05-01. The motion was seconded by Mr. Willis with Mr. Addington, Mr. Erwin, Mr. Michel, Mr. Moesner, and Mr. Willis voting yea, Mr. Gentry voting nay, and Mr. Conner abstained, motion carried.
The President called to entertain a motion for petition PC-R-05-02.
Mr. Gentry moved that PC-R-05-02 be recommended to the Commissioners approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moesner with Mr. Addington, Mr. Erwin, Mr. Michel, Mr. Moesner and Mr. Willis voting yea, Mr. Gentry voting nay, and Mr. Conner abstained, motion carried.
PC-R-05-03 – Petition of
Virginia A. Schnur, Maria D. Eisterhold, Anne T. Schnur Downey and
Beverly J. Schnur by Dona Lasher, P.O.A. to rezone 73.99 acres
located on the S side of Telephone Rd. approximately 0’s of the intersection formed
by Telephone Rd. (S 200) & Epworth Rd. (W 1050), Ohio Twp. from “A”
Agriculture to “M-2” General Industrial zoning district. (Complete legal on
file.) Advertised in the Boonville Standard
The President called for a staff report from the Assistant Director.
The Assistant Director stated we need either an unopened envelope or return
receipt for Marlene Stahl, Lloyd Stahl and Mildred Stahl, all others have been
submitted. She said the applicant is requesting to rezone 73.9 acres from “A”
Agriculture to “M-2” General Industrial and there is no minimum lot size
required for industrial zoning. She also
added the existing land use is “A” Agricultural. She stated the Comprehensive Plan projects
the area to be Industrial, to the North is “M-2” General Industrial – Carter
Lumber, to the South is “M-2” General Industrial – undeveloped with an existing
residence, to the East is “A” Agriculture with residences and to the West is vacant
“A” Agriculture. She stated that approximately
½ of the property lies within a Zone AE Flood Plain and the other ½ is in a 500
year flood plain. She said BFE has been
established and any structure will have to be built two feet above the BFE and
Certified Plot plans will need to be submitted prior to any Improvement
Location Permit being issued and then certified “as builts” must be submitted
after construction. She stated the BFE
on this property is 387’and Howard Ditch also runs along part of the Eastern
edge and it is a regulated drain that requires a 75’ from top of bank easement
for maintenance. She said the property fronts on
The President asked for questions from Board Members, being none he asked for remonstrators.
Ms. Willis stated in regards to what was said earlier she wanted to know if anyone could petition to rezone property without proof of what was going on the property and she also asked why it was not the buyer’s responsibility to rezone the property instead of the sellers. She stated she did not understand how property could be rezoned without the Board knowing exactly what was going on the property. She said that out of courtesy they provided blueprint plans to show exactly what was being put on the property and she doesn’t understand why this applicant is being approved to rezone to M-2 when there is a possibility that the deal might not go through.
Mr. Gentry explained as our attorney had said earlier, the Board is bound by our old Comprehensive Zoning Plan that states they only have to meet the projected use of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Shively stated that if we were under our new Ordinance they would be required to provide more information but not under the exiting Ordinance.
Mr. Gentry said that they saw a flaw in the old Ordinance and made the necessary changes but this petition was filed under the old Ordinance and that is what we must abide by.
Ms. Willis states she understands that they can not require the applicant to submit plans but they mentioned an auto company being put on one of the parcels as mentioned in petition PC-R-05-01 so she asked if this meant that the owner will have the business on all three parcels since they are requesting to rezone all of them to M-2. She also asked the Board if someone could rezone property to M-2 just for the simple fact that the surrounding properties were zoned M-2, because when they rezoned they had to have a business to meet the need for the rezoning. She stated that was all she had.
Mr. Gentry stated that the action taken tonight is not the final action. He said they make recommendations to the Commissioners and they make the final actions at their meeting on February 9th.
The President called for any other questions from Board Members, being none he asked to entertain a motion.
Mr. Gentry made a motion that
PC-R-05-03 be recommended to
OTHER BUSINESS:
Formal Complaint: Pamela
Thomason, (OWNER) – William Bunner II (TENANT)
The President asked to entertain a motion.
Mr. Willis made a motion that they were no longer in violation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Addington and unanimously carried.
ATTORNEY BUSINESS:
Mr. Shively stated that we got a judgment against Mr. Knaus to force him to clean up his property. He said that it has been cleaned up and he paid into the Court yesterday a fine of $1000.00 in cash.
Mr. Shively stated that the Indiana General Assembly is in session and time is still open for submission of bills and they anticipate there is going to be some proposed legislation affecting the zoning and enabling statutes. He added that Ms. Phillips is actually better at monitoring this than he is and they will be keeping abreast of that situation.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BUSINESS:
Fess and Applications:
The Assistant Director stated
with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance going into effect on February 1s.t She stated they felt it was necessary to
re-evaluate the fees and propose some increases to help generate more income
for the office and County. She said
currently the filing fee for rezoning anything under 2 acres is $200.00, 2-5
acres is $350.00 and 5 acres or more is $500.00. She stated the new rezoning fees being
proposed are as follows:
PROPOSED CHANGE TO
AGRICULTURAL, CON, A, R-1, R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-1D, R-2, R-2A, R-2B, R-3, R-O, R-MH
AREA LESS THAN 2.0 ACRES $ 200.00
AREA 2.0 ACRES TO 4.9 ACRES $ 350.00
AREA 5.0 ACRES OR MORE $ 500.00
PROPOSED CHANGE TO ANY PUD,
C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, W-R, W-I, M-1, M-2, M-3
AREA LESS THAN 2.0 ACRES $ 250.00
AREA 2.0 ACRES TO 4.9 ACRES $ 500.00
AREA 5.0 ACRES OR MORE $ 750.00
AMENDMENTS AND/OR
CONTINUANCES HALF
OF FILING FEE
She stated that currently the fee for a Variance is $125.00 and they propose an increase to $200.00 and an amendment or continuance would be $100.00 which is currently $75.00. She said at this time we have Special Exceptions and Conditional Uses that go before the Board of Zoning Appeals and those will be combined to Special Uses and the filing fee for an SU-22, which is a mobile home will remain the same at $50.00 and all other Special Uses such as home occupation or cell towers will be a $200.00 filing fee, any amendment or continuance would be $100.00. She said if there would be a need to appeal a staff decision it would be a filing fee of $200.00 and any amendment or continuance would be $100.00. She stated that the current filing fee for a minor subdivision is $50.00 for 3 lots or less and anything over 4 lots is $100.00, and the new proposed fee is a flat $100.00 with a plat release fee of $100.00. She stated that filing fees for a major subdivision would remain the same as follows:
FILING FEES
$300.00 &
$10.00
AMENDMENT AND/OR
CONTINUANCE
$150.00 & $ 5.00
PLAT RELEASE FEE
$200.00 & $ 2.00
Minimum of $ 250.00
She added that recording fees would be determined depending on size and amount of paper work and Evansville Blue Print would remain at $42.10 per sheet.
Mr. Conner asked what a plat release fee was for.
Mrs. Lacer replied that is when a secondary plat is filed and we have to check it to make sure it conforms to the primary plat and that it has all the documentation and make sure the letter of credit is in place and all corrections are made.
Mr. Gentry asked if that was a new fee.
Mrs. Lacer replied it is for a minor subdivision but not a major subdivision.
Mrs. Lacer went on to say that Improvement Location Permits for an accessory structure such as an unattached garage will remain $50.00 and single family dwelling, agricultural and an addition to a residence will also remain the same at $50.00. She stated that a multi-family dwelling such as a duplex or apartment and commercial permits will be $100.00 and on-premise signs as well as off-premise signs will be $100.00 per sign and a temporary portable sign will be $25.00.
Mr. Shively asked if a new business came in that required a pylon sign as well as a couple facial signs, will they be charged for 3 signs or will it just be one since it is all on one application.
Mrs. Lacer said they would be charged per sign not per application. She went on to say that currently we do not charge for commercial site review applications and it actually involves quite a bit of time and work so we propose that a $50.00 fee start being charged for these meetings and for a zoning certification the fee will remain the same at $30.00 as well as $100.00 per day for a violation fee if you are posted and this is also remaining the same. She stated drive way permits will stay the same at $10.00 for residential and agricultural and $50.00 for commercial, sidewalk and street acceptance will remain at $25.00 and county maps stay the same at $3.00 and map index will also remain at $2.00. She said the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance will increase to $100.00, Subdivision Control Ordinance which should be finished this year will increase to $50.00 and the Comprehensive Plan will be $75.00. She added that subdivision copies will be $5.00 to incur the cost of the blue print and we have a plotter that prints large aerials that will be $10.00 per copy to help recoup its operating expenses.
Mr. Shively stated that he would like to remind everyone that in the old Ordinance the fees were set forth in there but in a sense you were robbing yourselves because those fees did not keep pace with inflation, increased cost and increased duties/responsibilities. He said in addition to that the enabling statutes allow Planning Commissions to set their own fees, so rather than having the fee schedule in the Zoning Ordinance we have mirrored the language from the enabling statues that says the Planning Commission shall set fees as they determine necessary for the operation of the office and issuing of permits so this is something that gives you the flexibility to adjust. He added that this does require a vote from the Planning Commission to adopt this fee schedule.
Mrs. Lacer asked if the new fees needed to be advertised in the newspaper.
Mr. Shively stated that they only have to be posted in the Planning Commission office.
Mr. Gentry asked what the new charges were that we had not charged for in the past.
Mrs. Lacer stated the new changes in the zonings were the PUD, commercials; $250.00, $500.00 and the $750.00 are all new because up until now the all zonings were the same price. She said the variance was increased $75.00.
Mr. Willis asked if this was new or just an increase.
Mrs. Lacer replied that it was only an increase.
Mr. Gentry asked if the amendment and continuance was new.
Mrs. Lacer stated that it was not new but they did not enforce the fee. She went on to say the fee for a flood plain variance increased and the Special Use was a completely new permit that combined the Special Exceptions and Conditional Uses from the old Ordinance and the SU-22 which is for a mobile home was split out separately. She stated the majors stayed the same and we increased minors to be flat across the board $100.00 and gave it a plat release which is new and multiple family and commercial improvement location permits were increased by $50.00 and on-premise signs by $50.00, temporary/portable sign permits are new and the fee is $25.00.
Mr. Willis asked since they were portable if they had to get a new permit each time it was moved.
Mrs. Lacer said, yes.
Mr. Addington asked if the temporary/portable sign permit would include the signs with flashing arrows pointing and other signs of that nature.
Mrs. Lacer stated that was correct. She added the fee for the commercial sight review was new and the only other increase was the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinance because of printing costs.
The President asked for any questions from Board Members.
Mr. Conner asked the Assistant Director if there were any comparisons or research done prior to setting these fees.
Mrs. Lacer stated that they were
compared to
The President asked for the Boards wishes.
Mr. Conner made a motion to
approve and adopt the revised fee schedule as presented and become effective
Use and Development:
The Assistant Director stated that a Use and Development Commitment has been typed up to go along with the Rezoning petitions. She said these will be required along with the zoning applications for large parcels of property that are filed.
Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Shively to refer to #1 on the commitment that reads Use of the real estate shall be limited to the following: He asked if that falls through, does it revert back.
Mr. Shively asked if he was referring to the rezoning or project falling through.
Mr. Gentry stated he was referring to the project because it reads limited to.
Mr. Shively said for example if someone petitioned for M-2 and the Board wanted to limit it to a particular use in order to accommodate the concerns of the Planning Commission, County Commissioners and adjacent land owners so it gets rezoned to the M-2 category but it will be limited with the Use and Development Commitment, and this is how it will be recorded in the official records in the Planning Commission office. He said if that use is never implemented then the only way they could use that property under an M-2 classification is to come back and start the rezoning process again and relieve them of that Use and Development Commitment.
Mr. Gentry stated they would be able to develop it as agriculture, residential or something lesser than general industrial.
Mr. Shively said that was correct. He also said that he wanted to talk to the Executive Director to maybe suggest a little tweak in the Use and Development Commitment because what we would like for it to do is embrace not only just limiting uses but also make reference to the Development Plan approval process. He stated he didn’t see anywhere on the form that makes specific reference to the Development Plan. He stated what happens is the Use and Development Commitment becomes a part of the Ordinance that is recorded with the rezoning so all that information has to be embraced in here. He said other than adding something in there to incorporate the development requirement such as “I donate right of way”, “I will put up fencing” etc. there needs to be a place to include that on this form. He stated this is very minor and he is not recommending postponing voting on these forms because there is nothing wrong on the forms he just feels they are not complete enough.
Mr. Willis asked if someone rezoned property to M-1 or M-2 and that fell through could they then build a C-3 or C-4 without filing for a rezoning.
Mr. Shively said how you protect yourself in this case is by adding to the form “and any other use allowed in the subordinate zoning classifications.”
Mr. Addington stated going back to the Comprehensive Zoning Plan, Mr. Shively had mentioned earlier that the State is looking very closely at how the Planning Commission Board complies with the zoning plan.
Mr. Shively said there is a statute that says the legislative body and the Planning Commission shall pay due regard to the following in any request to amend the zoning maps and number 1 is adherence to the Comprehensive Plan. So he said that it is very important that you look closely at the Comprehensive Plan because if you make a zoning decision that is totally inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan that could be found to be a arbitrary and capricious decision so he just wanted to let the Board know that the Supreme Court may say the statute is not mandatory it is just suggested but we should get ourselves prepared because he feels it is going the other direction.
The President asked for any other questions by Board Members, being none he asked to entertain a motion.
Mr. Willis made a motion to
approve the Use and Development Commitment effective
Special Use Instruction Sheet and Application:
The Assistant Director stated that it is a combination of the Conditional Use and Special Exception applications.
Mr. Shively stated that they are basically the same as they had used before only combined.
The President asked if there were any questions from Board Members. Being none he asked to entertain a motion.
Mr. Addington made a motion to approve the Special Use instruction sheet and application and that they grant permission to make adjustment they would need in the future. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moesner and unanimously carried.
The Assistant Director stated
that we have 2 bills from Bernardin Lochmueller & Associates for $518.50
and $323.00 for the Subdivision Control Ordinance. She said that it has been electronically
submitted and Sherri has been reading and marking it up and she has a meeting
with Mr. Rippel and Mr. Isley on January 20th at
Mr. Conner asked how much of the total Subdivision Control has we released.
Mrs. Lacer said she didn’t think much of it had been released; we were just starting to pay the bills on it.
Mr. Shively asked if we had an electronic copy of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Lacer said no, but we would like to have one.
Mr. Gentry asked if it was going to fine tuned again with the amendments approved tonight.
Mrs. Lacer said the amendments have already been done and we 25 copies if anyone needed to pick one up.
Mr. Shively said he would e-mail an electronic copy to the Planning Commission office.
The President asked for a motion to pay the bills.
Mr. Erwin made a motion to pay the bills to Bernardin Lochmueller & Associates and it was seconded by Mr. Conner.
The President asked for questions from Board Members.
Mr. Willis asked if this money would come out of last year’s budget.
Mrs. Lacer said the money had been encumbered and it had been taken care of.
The President asked if there was any other discussion, being none the motion was unanimously carried.
Mr. Erwin made a motion to adjourn the meeting and it was seconded by Mr. Moesner and unanimously carried.
Being no other business the
meeting adjourned at
______________________________
Guy Gentry, President
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Sherri Phillips, Executive Director